Glenn1969
Established Member
I also thought it wasn't included in the Upgrade plans for now. So maybe they do see it as an issue
I think he was referring to the two disused single bores, where OHLE would be a tight fit.Why would this be necessary? It was reported upthread that electrifying Standedge isn't seen as a major problem
Why would this be necessary? It was reported upthread that electrifying Standedge isn't seen as a major problem
I was so as I thought, horrendously expensiveI think he was referring to the two disused single bores, where OHLE would be a tight fit.
Nevertheless, the enlargement of a tunnel less than 100 yards in length (IIRC) won't hold too many lessons for tunnels which are 3 miles long through very different geology.
I would imagine so! Track lowering as much as possible without disturbing the canal tunnel (which is at a lower level) and rigid conductor bar in place of wires would seem the best way forward.
All the tunnels under Standedge will be well below the water table for much of their length, being several hundred feet below the ground. It's the physical structure of the canal tunnel (and the rock/earth immediately surrounding it) that sets the limit. Ground water ingress is an issue at many tunnels and is usually dealt with using drainage and/or pumps.But presumably one cannot lower it too much otherwise you have 'hit' the water table which presumably the level of the canal reflects?
All the tunnels under Standedge will be well below the water table for much of their length, being several hundred feet below the ground. It's the physical structure of the canal tunnel (and the rock/earth immediately surrounding it) that sets the limit. Ground water ingress is an issue at many tunnels and is usually dealt with using drainage and/or pumps.
Cheers, I'll check it out.If you watch Martin Zero's unauthorised trip on You Tube in to the tunnels they look in pretty good nick, whether in good enough nick to be returned to operational use, I don't know.
So let's stop banging our heads against a brick wall then. Neither route out of Manchester can be adapted to give what is needed, so simply recognise that a new alignment would be quicker and easier to build, faster (without going for any super-high speed) and less disruptive into the bargain.
More passenger capacity can be delivered as quickly as rolling stock can be built (and commissioned!) and serious lengthening of platforms to 8- or 10-car lengths isn't really needed if you run half-hourly long trains stopping only at key locations with shorter local/stopping trains in between.
Electrification of all lines is needed anyway, but a new line could protect longer-distance travel across the region from the difficulties and even prolonged closures discussed up-thread, which make you wonder if it is worth doing at all.
Prolonged closures will be required at some point if the published plan is taken forward, because of the scale of work required. It isn't as simple as just stringing up some wires, as there's multiple stations to completely rebuild over a stretch of a few miles. Just wiring the current alignment won't in and of itself do much for capacity, and will only further limit any future expansion.On the contrary, if they electrified the route, they could deliver precisely what is needed, i.e. frequent long trains over the route to provide bags of capacity well into the future.
I'm afraid that I still don't see why closures have to be so much more prolonged than other electrification schemes.
Prolonged closures will be required at some point if the published plan is taken forward, because of the scale of work required. It isn't as simple as just stringing up some wires, as there's multiple stations to completely rebuild over a stretch of a few miles. Just wiring the current alignment won't in and of itself do much for capacity, and will only further limit any future expansion.
I've also heard (though it may be rumour) that the viaduct immediately East of Huddersfield station has potentially serious structural issues and is being monitored closely as a result. If that has to be replaced it'll be a massive job with a lot of disruption to both rail and road.
... providing central government provides funding for a line that doesn't go to London!
Think just the line via Ashton, not Guide Bridge?
False economy, as it's only a very short distance between stalybridge and guide bridge, that provides an electrified diversionary route.
Possibly easier to justify as an add on later?False economy, as it's only a very short distance between stalybridge and guide bridge, that provides an electrified diversionary route.
But under current electrification plans (with the "Grayling Gap" over the Pennines) allows NO services to go electric, unless a Piccadilly to Stalybridge stopper is introduced.False economy, as it's only a very short distance between stalybridge and guide bridge, that provides an electrified diversionary route.
Stopper - quite useful to improve performance stop it getting in the way of other services?But under current electrification plans (with the "Grayling Gap" over the Pennines) allows NO services to go electric, unless a Piccadilly to Stalybridge stopper is introduced.
I appreciate I'm getting into Speculative Ideas a bit here... but since the Ordsall Chord opened, there's only 2tph TPE Stalybridge to Ardwick, so there should be a path available. Plus if it calls all/most shacks it'll fit in better with the Hadfield services from Guide Bridge onwards. The main constraints would be crossing the western throat of Stalybridge*, and terminal platforms at Piccadilly.Stopper - quite useful to improve performance stop it getting in the way of other services?
Guide Bridge Jn - Stalybridge as an infill scheme is only 6.7 stkm of electrification so small easy add on later.I appreciate I'm getting into Speculative Ideas a bit here... but since the Ordsall Chord opened, there's only 2tph TPE Stalybridge to Ardwick, so there should be a path available. Plus if it calls all/most shacks it'll fit in better with the Hadfield services from Guide Bridge onwards. The main constraints would be crossing the western throat of Stalybridge*, and terminal platforms at Piccadilly.
*=has there been any published proposals for said station throat? IIRC it was identified as a pinch-point in the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade study despite having been rebuilt relatively recently.
I agree that it's a no-brainer from a strategic point of view, but in terms of day-to-day diesel mileage reduced it scores a big fat zero unless the Grayling Gap is closed, or unless TfGM or Northern/their successors* want a Stalybridge to Piccadilly "S-Bahn" service. Even then it isn't a reduction as it'd be a new service. A good use of those orphaned 323s too!Guide Bridge Jn - Stalybridge as an infill scheme is only 6.7 stkm of electrification so small easy add on later.
For a ballpark destination - Stalybridge. Precisely how far east of Stalybridge is yet to be determined.This is slightly off the current direction of this thread. But could anyone clarify how far past Victoria to the East that the current electrification is planned/funded to go?
I've also heard (though it may be rumour) that the viaduct immediately East of Huddersfield station has potentially serious structural issues and is being monitored closely as a result. If that has to be replaced it'll be a massive job with a lot of disruption to both rail and road.
For anyone who hasn't found it yet:
Tampers and other track plant are permitted to cross the viaduct, just not allowed to actually tamp! AIUI all ballast repacking on the structure is done the old fashioned way, by a human with a shovel!If that's the case then electrifying or quad-tracking east of Huddersfield (and west of Deighton) will be a no go until something is done about it. There are signs on the viaduct that state no tampers are permitted to cross the structure.
Exploring With Fighters also visited the Standedge tunnels, however with some careful editing it appears that they enter the tunnel from some side road in Hull.